Don't qualify for benefits if you don't work 32 hours.

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #319,771 by folkert 1/8/10 2:37:06 PM Reply	Don't qualify for benefits if you don't work 32 hours.
Post #319,772 by drook 1/8/10 2:44:32 PM Reply	Obviously that's the big change the Govt. would have to make They'd have to redefine "full-time employee" to mean something less than 40 hours. -- Drew

How to fix the labor market. - (Another Scott) - (38) - Jan. 7, 2010, 03:30:27 PM EST

ROFL minimum wage - (boxley) - (37) - Jan. 7, 2010, 03:35:14 PM EST

Hmmm... - (Another Scott) - (16) - Jan. 7, 2010, 03:43:17 PM EST

Re: Hmmm... - (boxley) - (15) - Jan. 7, 2010, 03:53:13 PM EST

Got a linky? Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (14) - Jan. 7, 2010, 03:54:38 PM EST

Go to McWendy Kingchicken. - (beepster) - (1) - Jan. 7, 2010, 04:06:48 PM EST

Not around here. YMMV. - (Another Scott) - Jan. 7, 2010, 04:08:48 PM EST

here ya go - (boxley) - (11) - Jan. 7, 2010, 04:10:47 PM EST

Counterpoint. - (Another Scott) - (10) - Jan. 7, 2010, 04:29:58 PM EST

you respond to the leading economic paper in the US - (boxley) - (1) - Jan. 7, 2010, 05:23:37 PM EST

The WSJ's Editorial Page is as right wing as WND. - (Another Scott) - Jan. 7, 2010, 08:32:58 PM EST

here, have a graph - (boxley) - (4) - Jan. 7, 2010, 05:37:35 PM EST

Correlation is not causality. - (Another Scott) - (3) - Jan. 7, 2010, 10:09:28 PM EST

Re: Correlation is not causality. - (boxley) - (2) - Jan. 7, 2010, 10:33:00 PM EST

<head against brick wall> ;-) -NT - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 7, 2010, 10:44:33 PM EST

yeah look how many posts it took me :-) - (boxley) - Jan. 7, 2010, 11:13:49 PM EST

NJ - (beepster) - (2) - Jan. 7, 2010, 07:06:36 PM EST

Evidence, please. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 7, 2010, 08:28:18 PM EST

check the graph ^ makes my point -NT - (boxley) - Jan. 7, 2010, 08:39:33 PM EST

That's a crock - (jake123) - (17) - Jan. 7, 2010, 04:12:27 PM EST

Yup, you raise the minimum wage . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (16) - Jan. 7, 2010, 04:46:07 PM EST

The thing is, around here - (jake123) - (15) - Jan. 7, 2010, 04:49:49 PM EST

Yup. - (Another Scott) - (14) - Jan. 7, 2010, 04:56:52 PM EST

Shorter workweek is absolutely needed - (drook) - (11) - Jan. 7, 2010, 05:14:25 PM EST

Re: Shorter workweek is absolutely needed - (boxley) - (9) - Jan. 7, 2010, 05:26:22 PM EST

Companies hate it - (jay) - (8) - Jan. 8, 2010, 11:22:22 AM EST

Good points and a good idea. - (Another Scott) - (7) - Jan. 8, 2010, 11:49:53 AM EST

Don't qualify for benefits if you don't work 32 hours. -NT - (folkert) - (1) - Jan. 8, 2010, 02:37:06 PM EST

Obviously that's the big change the Govt. would have to make - (drook) - Jan. 8, 2010, 02:44:32 PM EST

And this would change things how? - (beepster) - (3) - Jan. 8, 2010, 06:55:44 PM EST

RCP? - (Another Scott) - (2) - Jan. 8, 2010, 07:24:52 PM EST

and it worked so well in France - (beepster) - (1) - Jan. 8, 2010, 07:52:13 PM EST

Hmmm. - (Another Scott) - Jan. 8, 2010, 08:44:09 PM EST

Re: Good points and a good idea. - (jay) - Jan. 9, 2010, 12:54:54 PM EST

maybe a better idea - (boxley) - Jan. 7, 2010, 11:16:45 PM EST

Re: Yup. - (beepster) - (1) - Jan. 7, 2010, 07:10:49 PM EST

I remember it differently. - (Another Scott) - Jan. 7, 2010, 08:22:14 PM EST

Re: ROFL minimum wage - (lincoln) - (1) - Jan. 8, 2010, 10:27:46 AM EST

Well.. - (beepster) - Jan. 8, 2010, 11:23:37 AM EST

Who?
113 ms